It Is Not Possible To Limit Or Change The Rights Granted To The Parties In The Judgment Clause Through Correction And Amendment – Correction Of The Judgment Through Correction And Amendment Is Unjustified
T.C. JUDICIARY
19th Civil Chamber
Basis: 2015/17928
Decision: 2016/10527
Date of Decision: 13.06.2016
ANNULMENT OF THE CONTRACT – IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LIMIT OR CHANGE THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE PARTIES IN THE JUDGMENT BY WAY OF AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION – THE AMENDMENT OF THE JUDGMENT BY WAY OF AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION IS INAPPROPRIATE – THE ADDITIONAL DECISION MUST BE REVERSED
SUMMARY: It has been stipulated that the court may correct clerical and accounting errors and other similar clear errors in the judgment, and that it is possible to amend the judgment only if the judgment is not clear enough, if it causes hesitation in its execution or if it contains contradictory paragraphs, and it is not possible to limit or change the rights granted to the parties in the judgment paragraph through correction and amendment. It was not deemed correct for the court to correct the judgment by way of rectification and amendment without considering this aspect. For these reasons explained, the additional decision of the local court dated 03/06/2015 should be reversed.
(6100 S. K. art. 304, 305)
Case: At the end of the trial of the cancellation of the contract between the parties, the judgment regarding the acceptance of the case for the reasons written in the judgment was finalized without appeal, and the court’s additional decision dated 03/06/2015 and the decision of the court was given with the additional decision dated 03/06/2015, and this additional decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney, the file was examined and the necessity was discussed and considered.
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client sold the towing vehicle to the defendant company based on the sales contract with the condition of retaining the ownership, but the sales price was not paid, that his client had the right to terminate the contract, and that the defendant currently has a lien on the vehicle due to the defendant’s debts to 3rd parties. The defendant claimed that there are liens, seizures and precautionary attachments on the vehicle due to the debts of the defendant to third parties, and demanded and sued for an injunction to prevent the transfer of the vehicle to third parties, cancellation of the contract, cancellation of the defendant’s traffic registration in the vehicle subject to sale and registration of the vehicle in the name of his client.
The defendant’s attorney stated that they accepted the lawsuit.
The court decided to accept the case on the grounds that the defendant accepted the case, the annotations on the traffic record of the vehicle were placed after the registration of the sales contract on the condition that the ownership was reserved, to terminate the sales contract on the condition that the ownership was reserved, to remove the liens on the vehicle, to cancel the registration of the vehicle in the name of the defendant and to register it in the name of the plaintiff, the decision became final without appeal, and with the additional decision of the court dated 03/06/2015, with the additional decision dated 03/06/2015, the word “liens” in paragraph 2. The word “seizures” in subparagraph 2 of paragraph 2 of the judgment was decided to be corrected and amended as “injunction”, and this additional decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In the short decision and reasoned decision of the local court dated 01/04/2015, it was ruled that “…the liens on the vehicle shall be removed,” and the decision became final, but later, with the additional decision dated 03/06/2015, the word “liens” in the paragraph of the judgment was changed as “injunction”.
Article 304/1 of the CCP stipulates that clerical and accounting errors and other similar clear errors in the judgment can be corrected by the court, and Article 305/2 of the same Law stipulates that the amendment can only be made if the judgment is not clear enough, causes hesitation in its execution or contains contradictory paragraphs, and it is not possible to limit or change the rights granted to the parties in the paragraph of the judgment through amendment and amendment. It was not deemed correct for the court to correct the judgment by way of rectification and amendment without considering this aspect. For these reasons explained, the additional decision of the local court dated 03/06/2015 should be reversed.
Conclusion For the reasons explained above, the appeal objections of the plaintiff’s attorney were accepted and the additional decision dated 03/06/2015 was reversed, and it was unanimously decided on 13.06.2016 to refund the advance fee upon request.